Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 8

RfC: Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia Page?
Recently, there has been quite a huge discussion on the talk page with no clear consensus on whether it should or should not be included. Main concerns brought up were WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RSUW. The subject of this biographical article, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist commentator, was accused by an artist of using without permission fan-art created by the artist. The art was used in her series, "Tropes vs Women", an online Youtube Video series intended to expose the bias against women in video games. One primary source, http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita (the artist's blog) and two other sources has reported on the controversy. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger (a seemingly reliable source) and http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/03/10/fan-artist-upset-over-feminist-frequencys-use-her-art (who's reliability has been brought into question) Can/should the details of this controversy be included in this biographical article?" Ging287 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Include Move to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a brief, single sentence mentioning the existence of the incident (plus the Escapist reference) and the change of the promotional logo because of it. The Escapist source is a stand-alone piece dedicated exclusively to report this controversy. It's worth nothing that the article contains other references of similar reliability (blog pieces by professional writers regularly stating their opinions at specialiced gaming magazines; these appear primarily in the Reception section), so this piece should be treated with similar weight. Diego (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude: WP:GOSSIP states that the standards for biographical articles are high. In this case, the content being reported involves an accusation of impropriety by a single party, who, as the Escapist article states, may or may not even have a legitimate claim of a copyright violation. And, there is no indication Sarkeesian herself was directly responsible in the appropriation of the artist's drawing. There has been no court case, only an accusation. So then what is the story? That the subject may have done something? Inclusion does not meet the high standards of a BLP. Further, the "controversy" isn't particularly relevant to our understanding of the subject. It constitutes WP:UNDUE, as it serves as a platform for detractors to voice criticism of the subject through a scantly sourced, minor 'scandal'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Include: Controversies are usually well documented on biographies, with a NPOV and generally fair credence given towards both sides. We have enough sources to justify at least a mention, whereas on other biographies, the controversies are usually only documented with 1-3 sources, or more depending on how big the controversy is. Also, the day of the controversy spiked on Reddit, was the day this page received almost 3500 views, compared to its usual 600. Currently, I feel as if it would be beneficial to include this event with a NPOV and accurate facts.  Ging287 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude: per WP:GOSSIP and WP:RSUW, primarily. Given that this is a BLP where the bar is somewhat higher, I'm not seeing the need to include this here - A l is o n  ❤ 00:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude: Something about it just being a blog post makes me skeptical of it's true validity since dates on posts can be changed. Zero Serenity (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude as per Cyphoidbomb's arguments. If this is truly an encyclopedic incident, there will be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and a definable outcome, rather than one marginal source which essentially just repeats unverified accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude from both articles. I have no dispute with those who have raised this issue and framed the question in this RFC. The questions of copyright and fair use are central to the proper function of this encyclopedia and deserve discussion no matter the outcome. That said, I'm not seeing anything approaching BLP-threshold sourcing which would warrant inclusion. BLP policy states clearly that anything contentious must be cited with reliable sources. There's zero RS which clearly defines the terms of the alleged incident. Without RS we have no way of knowing the accuracy of any claims. We have a single self-published accusation and a single situationally reliable source repeating these claims with little in the way of verification. If page views have increased, this is more reason we should follow proper BLP policy and guideline here, not less. NPOV doesn't mean we include criticism just to be "fair" to critics. The sourcing benchmarks on BLPs require criticism to carry weight justified by independence and reliability. Given the lengthy and determined trolling history on this pagespace, we have reason to be especially skeptical of self-published and marginal sources. BusterD (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As to User:Hahnchen's suggestion below this be included over at Tropes, I maintain we still have insufficient reliable sourcing for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced of the truthfulness or significance of this incident, based on sourcing. I don't agree that The Escapist meets the standard for RS in this context. Video games, yes; copyright issues related to video games, less so, IMHO. If multiple more reliable sources appear, I might be inclined to revisit this discussion. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're raising the bar higher and higher. This line of argument could easily discount most coverage of Sarkeesian and the series, "Sure IGN is reliable for video games, but feminist critique of video games, no."  As for gamepolitics.com, it's owned and run by the Entertainment Consumers Association, that's reliable enough for me. - hahnch e n 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Hahnchen may choose to see it his or her way, but the bar has always been the same for me. Based on sourcing, I'm not convinced this material rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:GOSSIP) even IF provable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog aggregator. I'd need to see significant sourcing which makes a case for inclusion, and such has not been presented yet. I expressed willingness to reconsider my position if better sourcing is presented. The best coverage seems to be on Kate Reynold's blog, and while seemingly sensible she's not a professional writer (she only has six contributions) and her publisher accepts virtually any submissions with little editorial control. So she's not RS (and she doesn't think Sarkeesian has acted poorly, in any case). The Escapist has been offered several times to describe this subject and her work, and consensus has judged the source insufficiently reliable when offered. The author Steven Bogos claims to be "an avid gamer that lives in Japan as an English teacher." No claim of expertise or even familiarity with fair use doctrine is presented. IMHO, this non-event is just the kind of internet chatter which has tried to creep in to this subject area several times, only to find lack of consensus. Such insertions require better sourcing, and those asserting for inclusion should attempt to make stronger arguments if they expect to be taken seriously.BusterD (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why your judgement of Bogos is important, when The Escapist pay him to report news. Your argument that you need to be a lawyer to cover this reliably would easily translate to, "You need a degree in women's studies" in order to critique Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and thus shut down most of the sources.  The only similar case I can think of, is Andy Baio's Kind of Bloop, and by chance, his article also references The Escapist.  I'm also unsure of how you came to the conclusion that Reynold's is the best source when there's coverage from Destructoid, The Escapist and Entertainment Consumers Association's GamePolitics.com. It is internet chatter, what do you expect from a kickstarted web video series on video games? - hahnch e n 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahnchen, I think part of the issue is that there are many high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series, but this particular material only appears in sources that various editors have found questionable (or unusable in the case of self-published blogs). The editor who started this RfC is the one who presented this source as the best (or least problematic) of the ones they identified.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude. Not enough sources to be considered significant and thus notable for an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude. As per DonQuixote, BusterD, Alison and Cyphiodbomb. Jarkeld (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude: The story is valid yet there is little beyond the very few sources available. Unless it develops further I would take issue due to WP:RSUW. So at it stands, no but I am open for future developments, if any. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The others, especially Cyphoidbomb, Alison, NorthBySouthBaranof, and BusterD, have already covered my main objections re undue weight. I'll add another objection that BusterD touched on: the source named in the proposal as "seemingly reliable", the Escapist piece, is actually questionable. I hadn't noticed before, but The Escapist is listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/RS. This means not every piece it publishes is assumed to be reliable for video game topics (let alone copyright law and media criticism); editors may need to demonstrate that a particular author is reliable. In this case, the author claims no particular expertise on relevant topics; his biography says he's an English teacher. As this is the best source identified, this non-story is hardly a "significant view" that needs to be included in an encyclopedic BLP as of yet.
 * I'll also say that these endless back and forths on trivial matters are frustrating when so much work remains to be done on the articles. There was no consensus for this addition in the previous discussion, and this RfC just reiterates what we already knew.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who is familiar with the sources at WP:VG/RS, The Escapist is reliable for news. It's tagged as "situational" because it also hosts video series which are primarily entertainment rather than information (like Fox in a way). As I mention below, I believe this is more suited to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article. - hahnch e n 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, Hahnchen. I still feel this information should be excluded, however. The Escapist piece is presented as the best source available for the material, but it's written by someone with no apparent expertise in relevant topics, in a publication that's questionably reliable in at least some circumstances. As such it doesn't do enough to establish this copyright issue is a "significant viewpoint" on this subject. Even if we accept that this source is usable, it doesn't mean we must use it, especially as this is a potentially serious claim about a living person, and especially in light of the various other high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series.-Cúchullain t/ c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's been brought up by a few different editors, I want to clarify that I oppose including this material either here or in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Everybody else says the same things I would have anyway. This is a private matter between Sarkeesian and the artist. The only "controversy" would be that which is manufactured by adding undue weight to the incidence. Wikipedia is not here to crowd source opinion, or remark upon every instance of drama on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Include: I suggest it's included in a minor manner until more of the matter is told by more reliable sources even if it was agreed privately. If it's not included then wikipedia editors could remove the "falafel" section from Bill O's BLP as it was settled outside court. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29#Sexual_harassment_lawsuit) Nosepea68 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comparing sexual harassment reported in several high profile news sources, a matter of public record, and a settlement suit to whether or not someone may or may not have appropriated an image that may or may not have breached copyright are clearly not equal. That argument is a prime example of "undue weight". Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Include at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games - The article was split because the video series was being given undue weight in the biography. It still is. - hahnch e n 04:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS, probably others as well. There was a blog post claim and a blog post response. It's not a big deal to us unless high-quality sources tell us that it's a big deal. Woodroar (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude NOTNEWS, UNDUE, etc. Stuff like this happens all the time. Who says it's significant? Jim1138 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude from both articles per WP:UNDUE. This is totally straining at a gnat trying to find a scandal that isn't there. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * do not include a non event in search of actual import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Seems to be a relatively insignificant controversy—more gossipy than encyclopedic. Also it seems questionable whether the sources are solid enough to use for such a claim in a BLP. Kaldari (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude: per WP:RSUW. A "seemingly reliable source" and a source in which the reliability has been "brought into question" are basis enough for exclusion. Rhinestone K (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Anita_Responds_to_Fan_Art_Controversy . It's also been covered by Daily Dot, the same source used in Trope vs Women's "Reception". Ging287 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude here, but include at Tropes article using the Escapist as the relevant source. It's absolutely noteworthy for that, not so much here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude: It's an allegation, an opinion that is not widely held or widely reported in the media. The article will not be harmed by its absence.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude To begin, it's an allegation. WP is not a gossip column.  And finally, who really cares? Atsme  &#9775;  talk  02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude - no brainer Cwobeel (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude Very small storm in a very small teacup by all accounts. WP:undue applies here, double so as we are talking about a BLP. AIR corn (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Wait until secondary sources see it as significant.  Determining significance from primary sources, such as news reports at the time of the incident, is original research.  Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
All three of the positions detailed above are reasonable enough. Mentioning something that has been covered in independent reliable sources makes sense, as long as it's done in a way that's neutral (i.e. doesn't draw conclusions about the validity of the complaint). Also, leaving it out as minor and ephemeral makes sense; it seems unlikely that this will be considered one of the major points of Sarkeesian's biography through the lens of history. (And if I'm wrong, that's always something that can be corrected later.) One thing I do disagree with, is that the 600- to 3500-view spike should influence the decision. It seems most likely to me that if people were reading about the controversy on Reddit or elsewhere, they came to Wikipedia to gain context for understanding that story. Just like somebody reading about a controversy of any public figure might seek out general information about the person. Anyway, I'm mu-ving on. There's more interesting work to be done on this 'pedia. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The main reason why I included that in my opinion is because it was a huge bump in views on this page. Indeed, people were likely looking for a encyclopedic view on the controversy and found none on this page. While not necessarily a sole argument for why it should be included, I'd say it's somewhat telling. I didn't mean it as a vitriol or a cheap shot at Cyphoidbomb. Ging287 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No slight was perceived. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * New response from Anita herself; http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Ging287 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anita Responds to Fan Art Controversy
Presented without comment. Zero Serenity (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So for all of you people who originally rejected including it on her Wikipedia page, she's now officially responded to it. Ging287 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Great, and? Firstly, it's not her Wikipedia page. Secondly, I still maintain that this doesn't seem any more noteworthy than if the subject had any other civil dispute with any other citizen. "Sarkeesian was lecturing at a golf course and took off across the course with a golf cart that belonged to a member, believing that the golf cart was free to use. She later apologized for using the golf cart." What is the point? Wikipedia doesn't exist to report on the minutia of everybody's lives, and unless Sarkeesian becomes a notorious copyright thief as time goes on, this doesn't appear to be a historically significant event. And WP:UNDUE still appears to be a valid argument for its exclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The logo of the video series has changed because of it, so it has had a persistent effect on its branding. If only for this reason, the change of the logo because it included fan art should be mentioned at the article whose subject is specifically the video series. Diego (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.  This is not a significant minority view. Anita herself has responded to it.


 * The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all.


 * There's no more reliable source than straight from the horse's mouth on the original dissenter's side.


 * WP:UNDUE is meant to make sure that minority views are not represented, however a significant dispute which again, she responded to is significant enough to include. Ging287 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An RFC is ongoing. When wikipedians disagree as to interpretation of pillars, policies and guidelines, we measure consensus. If at the close of the RFC consensus finds the material should be included, it will be included. If consensus doesn't find it warrants inclusion, the material will stay out. I've given my reasons above. This recent posting doesn't move my opinion at all. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ging, respectfully, undue isn't limited to the snippets you've provided: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:BALASPS) This is consistent with my position that this event is not relevant to our presentation of the subject. The subject is a feminist commentator. That is what she is known for. That she or her organization misappropriated fanart doesn't improve our understanding of what the subject is known for anymore than a civil dispute about a misappropriated golf cart could teach us about the subject. The "minority view" in this case would be the view of the detractors who wish to paint the subject as immoral, or error prone, or whatever that minority agenda is. The only reason why it is being proposed, is because to her detractors, it represents a tasty morsel of controversy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there are editors out there who do appear to be looking for criticism for the sake of criticism (hence why I am watching this article to begin with), currently it has been civil and retained a good level of WP:GOODFAITH. Having said that, I do however see a degree of merit for this subject being moved to FF/Tropes article instead, at least within the talkpage. Given that there multiple sources (IE more than just the Escapist that seems to keep only being brought up) and an acknowledgment form the original source, I would be less inclined at this stage to dismiss it outright than before. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently, there is nothing preventing you from editing or starting up a new section for the source of claims/addendums that you wish to add. There is no page protection, no vandalistic edits/reverts on the talk page. No cursing, no swearing, no nothing inhibiting you from adding/discussing what you like. Ging287 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be the best option; it looks like too much weight for a biography, but it's related to the marketing image of the video series - as the promotional logo used the fan art, and now has been changed because of it. Changing my !vote. Diego (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The response from Sarkeesian just confirms how much of a non-issue this was: the most sensational claims are false, there's no legal issue, and the only thing to come of it is that Sarkeesian swapped out some art in a banner. It doesn't change my opinion at all, in fact I'm even more convinced this little footnote is totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate for either article. I'm with Cyphoid, and I reiterate my frustration that we've spent nearly two weeks on this pointless ephemera when necessary improvements and much better available sources remain on the sidelines.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one here wants to get frustrated. While I understand and even agree with your valid points (it is a very minor story), there still seems to be reasonable doubt amongst others that won't go away and I can even see their perspective to a degree. I for one would rather see this moved to the other article, that much can be agreed upon, especially if there are apparent pending improvements. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe. I don't know that the fact some editors keep bringing this episode up really signifies that it's important, only that those editors think it is, for reasons that may or may not mesh with Wikipedia standards and policy. Personally, I oppose this material being included in either article based on the sources we currently have, regardless of where it's discussed.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What would need to happen for you to agree with inclusion? What level of sourcing would you consider enough for mentioning the existence of this event in one of the articles? Is there a point at which you would think that it's rational to cover the event based on some amount of available sources? Diego (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not how it works. The burden of evidence is on the folks who want to add the material; if you want it included, you present your evidence and arguments. I'm not particularly interested in getting into some hypothetical contingency that would rationalize including material that's currently inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Not how it works"? I'm asking how much evidence, and of what nature, would YOU consider enough to satisfy BURDEN. Should I infer that no amount of evidence in the world would be enough for you to change your mind? Diego (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's being a bit unfair, Diego. I suspect if Time Magazine made Sarkeesian person of the year, and listed Sarkeesian's handling of this controversy a key factor in the publication's decision-making, User:Cuchullain might be persuaded. I'm also certain a somewhat smaller threshold of sourcing might be persuasive to Cúchullain. But that user is under no obligation to identify the precise threshold which would satisfy. I agree with that user this non-event is a tempest in a teapot and has no place in a biography or an article about the series, adding nothing significant about either. Just because something is true and verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. When we disagree about these issues, we measure consensus. Establishing consensus is more about light than heat, IMHO. So I encourage everyone to stay calm and edit Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I only ask because the amount of references for this subject is already higher than several opinions by commentators that happen to have been included in the article; yet there doesn't seem to be a point where those with an "Exclude" position would admit that this subject has enough weight for inclusion either at this or the other article, with most opinions against it being subjective and based on personal feelings or unexplained application of policy. If they offered some rational arguments for including or including references and applied them consistently for all sources, it would be much easier to take that position seriously. At least Cyphoidbomb voices the underlying concern against this coverage, that any form of criticism would amount to "scoring points" for Sarkeesian critics - but then WP:CENSOR is not a valid reason to avoid including content when it *has* been covered by several reliable sources in a responsible manner. In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner explaining the change without much ado, as marketing and commercial identification are consistently deemed important enough to merit coverage (even inclusion of non-free images under the strict criteria for NFC); but not on this one. Diego (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, can we please get some examples of these other articles where this has happened? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would that make a difference in your position? Diego (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. Would likely be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. But if you're going to suggest that it's common, I would respectfully ask for evidence indicating that it's common. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego Moya, since you're asking me personally, I'd say that if this little episode were substantively covered in multiple sources that were unquestionably reliable for directly relevant topics, we could talk about if and how we should include the material. That's just to open the discussion - it wouldn't mean we should, let alone must, include it. It still depends on how significant the episode is in the context of all sources for Sarkeesian and her work. Articles, at least good articles, aren't written by ticking boxes or "satisfying" minimum inclusion thresholds. They're written by consulting the best available sources and accurately representing what they say in a neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic manner. In this case it's all just hypothetical - we can't very well make decisions based on sources that don't exist. It's a distraction from the real question, which is whether the sources we actually have indicate that this copyright disagreement is a significant episode to the topic and justify its inclusion. In my mind, and evidently in the minds of most participants, the answer to that question is no.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been covered by The Daily Dot by the same writer who's opinion is already referenced in Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games. - hahnch e n 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that source up, Hahnchen. Daily Dot has been discussed a few times here and it seems to be fine; as you say the publication and author are cited here already (though that particular material will ultimately be moved over to the Tropes article). It's a much better source than the others, however I remain unconvinced it's enough to establish this episode is a significant viewpoint considering the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP implications.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source Hahnchen, although I would argue that some other sources are still valid. I will definitely agree with Cuchullain for this article, although I'll still recommend for the time being this being put in Tropes talkpage. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely why Wikipedia is not news. We can afford to wait to find out what happens rather than rushing to throw barely-supported and fourth-hand allegations into articles. It turns out this is literally a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: My position is not that it's a common occurence -that's your own wording- as much as that it's a reasonable position to hold, given the standards encoded in policy that drive coverage of marketing and brading throughout the whole project. It's unlikely that other articles happen to be in the exact same situation as this one, nor that was my position; but NFCI has a common understanding that marketing, branding, and identification information implicitly provide contextual significance to topics discussed by reliable sources, in particular for commentary of non-free images as is the logo discussed in this RfC; you should explain why this commonly held criterion doesn't provide significance at this case. Anyway, as you don't regard as relevant the other instances of logos under copyright contentions, I'll withheld the several examples that I had in mind of changes to logos and branding of products that happened because of concerns of copyright and trademark.

@Cúchullain: So far, so good - May I ask you why you don't always maintain the same position with respect to the references currently used to document the harassment and reception sections? There is definitely a double standard at place in this talk page where every author that wouldn't cast Sarkeesian in the best light is required to have both and degree in sociology, cultural studies and video game criticism, and where even sources deemed as reliable are cast into doubt the moment they decide to reflect a shred of criticism of the person and her work (even if otherwise they defend her to their heart), while no similar credentials are ever required for writers of articles that happen to praise her work.

I shall remind you that the number of editors holding a position should not hold as much weight as the arguments with which those positions are defended. I've seen much links to policy here, and very little discussion of the criteria that these policies establish as relevant for including or excluding topics. What would be the content of the policy that justifies this as having undue weight? This is not a flat Earth theory, it's about an issue with the image that the author herself has acknowledged. And where is the majority position about the copyright issue against which this one is in a minority position, therefore much less prominent, to the point that it should be completely hidden? When analyzing the criteria established by WP:UNDUE, they don't seem all that relevant at all, neither does mentioning this incident with neutral words seem to have any BLP implication. Is because of this that you don't discuss the content of the policies themselves, and limit your arguments to the name of the policy? As the event will permanently affect the commercial identification and branding of the video series, WP:NOTNEWS (which is about routine announcements of transient relevance) is not relevant either - any explanation of why the current logo is not the same one as the one used in the original Kickstarter campaign will necessarily need to mention this incident, so it's already part of the permanent record for the series.

A neutral point of view is to be decided primarily by what reliable sources deem worthy of coverage, rather than how editors happen to feel about that coverage. When those sources have identified a topic as noteworthy, neutrality requires that it is covered to at least some degree even if it's a point of view that you personally don't agree with. Diego (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for outlining your argument in a general manner, this section has become somewhat convoluted in structure. While previously I have held the view that this story may not be necessary due to the lack of sources/coverage, by this stage given the multiple references from reliable sources, including sources already mentioned along with the both first parties in the story, does hold merit. However as Diego has mentioned the the issue being with the branding, by this stage the story does seem more relevant to the series rather than the creator. What is slightly funny in a way though that despite all of the debate thus far, said piece IF included will more than likely only be a couple of sentences (within the Reception?) at best, so I find this whole situation to be something on an interesting test case even if we still don't agree in the near future. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I concede that "common" was my interpretation. I apologize. You said "In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner..." I was curious about the "in any other" aspect of the claim you were making, since no examples were provided. But whatevs. Also, my core argument isn't about censorship, my core argument is that not everything matters. We are allowed, and even encouraged to be discriminating about the sort of content we include, particularly for BLPs. I've been fairly clear about this point and how it relates to my argument. I recall a "scandal" many months ago where American actress Jamie Pressly accused another actress, Estella Warren, of stealing a purse from a party. There was coverage in a number of sources, Pressly gave an interview that detailed the allegations and talked about how she and her friend tracked down the purse by turning on the iPhone locator, blah blah blah. The scandal made a brief appearance in the article, (and I believe I was complicit in copyediting and finding sources, etc,) but another editor deleted the block for BLP issues (if memory serves me) and I remember thinking that was a decent call and that I probably should have removed it. My point is, that not everything requires mention, and I doubt Britannica would dignify such a triviality as this fanart kerfuffle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, I "maintain the same position" for all material, particularly if it's potentially controversial material about a living person, like this is. And more importantly, so does Wikipedia. Material I've added is mostly from academic publications and reputable newspapers; if there's a problem with any of it, bringing it up directly is a much better way to resolve the issue than hand-waving insinuations. The real "double standard" here is on the introducing end; for whatever reason people don't argue for weeks in support of poorly-sourced trivia when it's uncontroversial or flattering. As for requiring that sources have some "credentials" in the subjects they discuss, well, that comes from Wikipedia policy, and the fact that I've made an effort to become familiar with the range and quality of sources available for this topic rather than just relying on whatever happens to pop up in a Google search.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've also claimed several times that the collage is the "logo of the video series" or some such; this is false. As the Escapist piece and Sarkeesian's response make clear, it's the image used in the Kickstarter for the series. This is what's actually used in the series. The collage did get circulated in sources, especially older ones, but it's been less common since the series actually started.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well pardon me as that's not my claim, this is how it's identified in the Daily Dot article. The image is still used in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games image album. Diego (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Daily Dot and your comments are wrong. It's a subtle but significant distinction when you're trying to make claims about the impact of the disagreement.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a little comment, but ask this question, "How much of this will be covered in a ~400-page biography?" That is, an encyclopaedia article should not cover every detail just the major ones. So if this thing will take of up pages and pages or even a chapter in a 400-page biography, then it should be covered here. If this thing will only be a few sentences or even just a footnote, it probably shouldn't be covered in a relatively short encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Essentially, yes. While some have argued such, I have no issue with any of the perfectly reliable sources presented. However I had been sitting on them in the event the story would develop beyond what would end up as a simple throwaway sentence at the bottom on the article. By this stage I would say it is safe to assume that it won't develop any more, further more I can't see this article overall being greatly expanded in the foreseeable future either. So at this stage, a minor story casually and quietly brought up then immediately settled doesn't seem like a good fit to an already currently minor article/work in progress. While not the best comparison, I've read many legitimate stories on political figures that never made it into the article since the story didn't add much overall. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed the RFC and related sections after a discussion on my talk page. It does seem that a clear consensus has emerged, but ideally an RfC should be archived on its own, not along with other sections. Additionally, considering how contentious these discussion tend to be, it would be better if someone uninvolved performed the close. I'll make a request at WP:AN/RFC now.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

One-sided Article?
In the section discussing Anita's Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment it isn't mentioned why she faced such heavy criticism and backlash from the gaming community. In the entire article I couldn't see anywhere that even mentions why she faces such widespread criticism and disdain. 106.69.77.24 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please find a reliable secondary source that mentions this so that we can include it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually feel like the article is quite descriptive of why she was attacked. This sentence, "The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Amanda Marcotte in Slate magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse", in which "[e]very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her".", seems to indicate that she was attacked as a result of misogyny or sexist backlash to her criticisms of sexism in gaming. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All of which is referred to as "attacks caused by sexism" weren't all "attacks" in the first place. Most of it was an angry and not at all uncommon reaction (a backlash, if you will - and she's not the only one that's ever been affected, but the only one publicly complaining of it) to many of the perceived faults in her conduct as well as her works' content. That the reaction was sexist and misogynist is nothing but her own assertion founded on a misrepresentation of the people (and the community) reacting to her (in her speeches, she makes it sound like it's an organized sexist conspiracy against her). This article readily accepts that assertion as valid without question and irresponsibly proceeds to mention it several times throughout. However, personally, I don't have much against still calling it an attack, the important part is that the article does not neglect to mention that there was actual constructive criticism (and there was a lot of it - and might be also fair to mention that she never mentioned nor addressed any of it anywhere).
 * I usually like to think of this website, though vulnerable, as still maintained by mostly honest people who care for the accuracy of the information in it. Currently, the article seems as if the people maintaining it are just as dismissive as Anita is towards all the constructive criticism she was provided with, and towards all the suspicions of her misconduct (there are many certainties but I would be content with at least mentioning the controversial aspects of her campaign), among other things. The fact is, she is suspected of fraud, to put it bluntly (and that isn't referring to the money), and some nitpicking aside, people have a serious case for it, and that shouldn't be ignored.
 * Thanks. -85.240.73.115 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again - Got sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm harassment and rape threats are not attacks, but instead are "constructive criticism"? I think you're going to need some pretty good sources on this one. I've just reviewed all the sources in the "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" section and all of them seem to be reliable, third party sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The 85 IP's position appears to be without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of what I gathered was from youtube videos dissecting her works, her Masters thesis, her conduct, etc. Are videos considered valid as sources? If so, I'll have to ask if someone could be so kind as to check the youtubers Investig8tiveJournalism, thunderf00t, jordanowen42 (warning: long videos), and The Gaming Goose (this one actually agrees with some of her premises, but presents a much deeper and more accurate (and honest) analysis than Anita does on games). I'm asking you this because I'm going to be absent for some time since tomorrow (switching ISP), and I need to go to sleep now (3:30am). Hope no one takes this request the wrong way. And thanks.
 * I have to ask though, do you really need immediate sources to realize that the accusations of sexism and misogyny are assertions? Because nowhere in her videos did she objectively substantiate them, and the people's attacks are merely within the context that she is a self-proclaimed feminist. If she was a self-proclaimed atheist, instead of rape-threats she would receive attacks in that context, such as: "may you burn in hell" or "may the church van run over you". If they sound far fetched, try watching this video which features at least the latter, and exemplifies that context (death threats included): Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins - this is also one example of how other people receive "attacks" from their audience too, although, since his position in his debates is actually substantiated by reason and science, it's generally well received and accepted, thus the amount of attacks is much lower in comparison to Anita's - there probably should be a wiki page about this internet phenomenon to dispel much of the misunderstanding about it, but that's for a different discussion elsewhere, I guess). If you need more examples, just type "hate mail" or something similar on youtube or google and you'll get plenty of it.
 * @FenixFeather, I did not say the threats were constructive criticism. Please don't jump to conclusions if you're only reading cursorily. What I stated was, basically, that part of what she claimed to have perceived as attacks were actual constructive criticism, which she has been dismissing as if it was the exact same as the rest of it. That dismissive attitude has spread throughout many of the people who support her, and likely most of the people who are "outside" of the whole thing (such as the mainstream media (CNN) and many video gaming laymen).
 * The thing is, I'm not asking you to believe in me. I'm simply asking you to care about the information you're maintaining here, and to care about being impartial and fair about it. That will imply that you actually look closely at it. I'm sorry for not being able to provide more direct links myself. ::::Thanks. -85.240.73.115 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interpretation, original research and POV. Unfortunately you have provided no reliable secondary source to support any of your claims and thus, because of our policy of being impartial and fair, none of this will make it into an encyclopaedia article. Feel free to publish your interpretation, original research and POV on a blog. DonQuixote (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And additionally, this talk page isn't a forum for general discussion of the subject, let alone for unsupported negative claims about a living person. Please keep your comments tied to specific article improvements (which again, require reliable sources) or they'll be archived.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In short:
 * Claim 1 "All of which is referred to as "attacks caused by sexism" weren't all "attacks" in the first place."
 * Secondary sources used in this article clearly discuss sexist attacks, threats of rape, violent games etc. If you have reliable secondary sources that pre-date these attacks that outline them as not being sexist then please provide them.
 * Claim 2 Most of it was an angry and not at all uncommon reaction to many of the perceived faults in her conduct as well as her works' content.
 * As significant majority of the secondary sources deal with harassment prior to her series being released, or even the final Kickstarter total being achieved, I would be interested to see the reliable secondary sources that critically analyse something that didn't even exist, or could be angry about such non-existent material.
 * Claim 3 "That the reaction was sexist and misogynist is nothing but her own assertion founded on a misrepresentation of the people (and the community) reacting to her"
 * The secondary sources, some of whom were also harassed, disagree that it was just her assertion. Again, where are the sources that state that the creation of a game that allowed users to beat her, or leaving comments advocating rape, are only misogynistic or sexist based upon her assertion?
 * Claim 4 "in her speeches, she makes it sound like it's an organized sexist conspiracy against her"
 * Given that the attacks were documented by reputable secondary sources as originating from several core users, and astroturfed from specific forums, where are the reputable sources that say "actually, spontaneously a lot of people just don't like her". The secondary sources also make it quite clear that the only reason so much money was donated was specifically because of the organised attacks.
 * Claim 5 "This article readily accepts that assertion as valid without question and irresponsibly proceeds to mention it several times throughout."
 * This article relies upon the words of reliable secondary sources, some of whom were also attacked by the same individuals. If you have evidence that this article is accepting something because Sarkeesian said so i.e. a reliance upon a Primary Source for a controversial claim, then please identify it.
 * Claim 6 "However, personally, I don't have much against still calling it an attack"
 * Generous, fortunately we also have reputable secondary sources who also agree that it was an attack, therefore making your acceptance of these facts redundant.
 * Claim 7 "the important part is that the article does not neglect to mention that there was actual constructive criticism."
 * If you can provide the reliable secondary sources, we are waiting.
 * Claim 8 "and there was a lot of it - and might be also fair to mention that she never mentioned nor addressed any of it anywhere"
 * If there is a lot of it, then you should have no issue finding the sources of the valid criticism. The absence of her response is irrelevant. In the end this is her "opinion" against lots of other peoples "opinions" and that's pretty much the core value of free speech.
 * Claim 9 "What I stated was, basically, that part of what she claimed to have perceived as attacks were actual constructive criticism, which she has been dismissing as if it was the exact same as the rest of it."
 * Reliable Sources should be able to outline the constructive criticism that existed prior to or alongside the attacks that took place before her content existed. Reliable sources should also now be available that provide valid critique of the content. Please provide these sources.
 * Claim 10 "If she was a self-proclaimed atheist, instead of rape-threats she would receive attacks in that context, such as: "may you burn in hell" or "may the church van run over you".
 * Off topic, but do you honestly think that being a feminist contextualises "rape threats"? I would direct your attention to Elevatorgate.
 * Claim 11 "The fact is, she is suspected of fraud, to put it bluntly (and that isn't referring to the money), and some nitpicking aside, people have a serious case for it, and that shouldn't be ignored."
 * That is a very, very serious allegation. We're going to need more than some youtube videos of basement lawyering. Ideally an actual lawsuit would be very handy, if not imperative, to support that claim. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC):O
 * Oddly enough, although I am "a self-proclaimed feminist", nobody ever sends me rape threats. Or is this really just the old "well, of course she got rape threats: she's an uppity bitch!" assumption? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "well, of course she got rape threats... she's a woman"; "It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer" . Duckduckstop (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I said it before and I will say it again but why is there no mention of her being a possible minadrist? --106.69.187.23 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Misandrist? No RS. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes she refers men to as dicks, ignores male victims, does not mention any female villains and arguably encourages her viewers to boycott what ever she finds sexist however invoked the tropes can be.--106.69.187.23 (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Information regarding a WP:BLP of such a nature needs to have a high-quality reliable source (RS). Find such RSs and it can be added. BTW: those actions in of themselves do not constitute a misandrist. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay I don't have any but that is arguably what feminism is about.--106.69.187.23 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are no reliable sources there's nothing to talk about. Period. This is not a forum for presenting your personal opinions about what the subject "arguably" does or doesn't do, especially unsourced, negative editorializing about living people. Please don't do it again.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you think that even "arguably" that is what feminism is about, I pity you and the education system that has so failed you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Academic credentials
The subject's background does not include any critique of her educational background. I have included such information, and it was removed for reason of "original research", when I cited ever sentence with a reliable source. If we are to establish her as an expert, the reader should have an idea of what jobs the degree she holds allows her to do, compared to what she is trying to critique. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are to establish her as an expert, the reader should have an idea of what jobs the degree she holds allows her to do Why? We don't do this for any other biography on a living person, why would we do so for this article? Furthermore, while you did cite a number of sources, you were clearly making connections that did not exist in the sources themselves, which is textbook synthesis. Novusuna talk 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not only original research, it's exceptionally wrong-headed to think this material is ever going to go in here. Find sources that talk about it in RELATION TO THE SUBJECT of the article and then we can begin a conversation. Until then, read the part of WP:OR that says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." After you get that figured out, and if you manage to find sources that discuss any of your material that are "directly related to the topic of the article, we can begin explaining to you why the material can't go in anyway because of WP:UNDUE. TL;DR: Give it a fucking rest.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has critiqued her educational background. So we won't do it either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to know how quoting exact figures for employment, income and job placement is synthesis. The background lists her educational background. It shows she is educated in a specific subject matter. If the subject matter has no jobs measured objectively by the BLS available for this degree that are not available without a high school diploma, than she does not hold an expertise in any marketable skills that translate directly into job placement.
 * For example, if Sakeesian's baccalaureate degree was in business administration with a focus in marketing from Northwestern Illinois University and she obtained a Master of Public Administration from Governor's State University, it would be perfectly acceptable for the reader to know the rankings of these schools and career outcomes. In fact, if Sarkeesian would have chosen that degree major, I very highly doubt we would be having this conversation now, because the job placement, income and employment for those majors is very, very high because they contain the communication and political science that Sarkeesian studied, however, the math and science is much more difficult, which business and government require for quantitative analysis, and I honestly think that because the job outcomes for these majors Sarkeeesian chose are very low, you somehow jump to her defense, yet if I the data would show opposite, no one would have reverted my edit.
 * Plus, excuse me but The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and regionally-accredited university websites are very, very reliable sources, thank you very much.Taric25 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Making insinuations about her education based on biased, useless and methodologically-broken "university rankings" is right out.
 * Absolutely nobody cares what you or anyone else thinks about the "job outcomes" for Sarkeesian's majors. If you wish to prove otherwise, you need reliable sources discussing those outcomes in direct relation to Sarkeesian's life and career.
 * Similarly, your proposed addition implicitly asserted that average salaries are a meaningful way of demonstrating anything about a particular person's life and works... which is a) completely ridiculous and b) obviously biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Yes, your sources may be reliable, and yes, you cited everything you wrote. But, for example, I can go on the Computer science page and write cited content about puppies and sunshine. That does not mean the information is at all relevant to the article. So, accuracy of college rankings aside, your information about her university not having a proper science program or about how liberal arts majors earn less than people in computer science is utterly irrelevant. What does the GPA requirement of her undergraduate university have anything to do with her? Your edits were undue beyond all comprehension. If you want to criticize the schools she attended, do that on your blog. Leave your agenda at home, please. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not puppies, but definitely puppets!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I did not insinuate anything whatsoever. Lest we not forget she stated a kickstarter because she needed funding. I am sure people obviously care about her source of income for these videos she created, because that is the very heart of the article. I am not going to tolerate being accused of using unreliable sources or original research. I posted on this talk page to facilitate discussion, and your comments to be have been as worthwhile as the ones left on her social networks. Taric25 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if you actually think that you "did not insinuate anything whatsoever", then there is a clear case that you are lacking in WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia - I would suggest you use those college ratings and find one that has a good liberal arts track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If "people obviously care" then they'll write about it in reliable sources and then you can put it in, K?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not discuss this further with you, and I will report your language at user incidents. Have a nice day. Taric25 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it's OR and irrelevant. Grabbing a handful of sources about the academic ranking of Sarkeesian's alma mater and then using that as a way to try and implicitly discredit her is a ludicrous misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy in this area. WP:BLPSTYLE says "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves."
 * Raking around "contextualizing" a person's academic record when that record has not been the subject of any actual critical analysis by third parties is against BLP policy and against the rules against synthesis. Unless there's a reliable secondary source that claims that there is some contention around Ms. Sarkeesian's academic credentials, they don't need any more "contextualizing" than anybody else.
 * If someone wishes to see the relative academic standing of her alma mater, the hyperlink conveniently provided to that article is more than enough to do so.
 * Compare this to someone whose academic record actually is a matter of some controversy. Someone like, say, Kent Hovind, who basically has a correspondence course Ph.D from an unaccredited Bible college. In that article, Wikipedia has a section on his educational background where two professors (Barbara Forrest and Karen Bartelt) are referenced, who have written reliable secondary sources on Hovind's Ph.D and the controversy around it.
 * Even if it were compatible with OR and compatible with BLPSTYLE, the "contextualization" is simultaneously uninformative: a writer and cultural/media critic having degrees in communication and social and political thought is hardly something that needs contextualising—it's a fairly normal thing for writers and critics to have a humanities background. Funnily enough a degree in communications and/or humanities more generally—in the right hands—can make it so that a person can reasonably communicate their ideas to others. The inclusion of the expected job outcome stuff is also ludicrous. It's no secret that humanities degrees don't automatically guarantee you a job. It's not like medical school where you sort of know where you are going afterwards. I've got an MA in Philosophy—the "what you can do with your philosophy degree" pages on UK academic websites don't really reflect what I've been doing since graduating. So, yeah, other than a fairly ham-fisted attempt at objective-sounding trashing of a BLP subject (translation: "she's an idiot because she's got a non-STEM degree from a lousily-ranked university, she can't be right about any of that sexism in video games nonsense"), I'm not exactly sure what context the edit was adding. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the other editors' comments are anywhere near as problematic as the initial edit or the introducing editor's subsequent behavior. The material is patent original research and WP:SYNTH designed to cast the subject in a negative light, and the user is refusing to WP:LISTEN to those explaining the issue. It doesn't bode well that the editor went to ANI over curt but entirely on-point comments while engaging in this behavior.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the event that the OP still doesn't get it, I'd like encourage him (because I highly doubt the OP is a woman) to look through other biographies and try to find one that similarly attempts to "contextualize" the person's academic background when the person has a degree from an accreditted college. I'm going to estimate he will find zero.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Image to place
Given that I found this original photo on Flickr, it's been uploaded to commons as it has a good license and imho, may have a place on this article. It's a professional photo of Anita speaking a media conference. Does it have a place on the article? Of course I don't mean that every image of her is to be used on this article; but this particular one I think could be in some fashion. File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anita_Sarkeesian_2013.jpg Tutelary (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about on the right side of the Awards and Recognition section? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I've no knowledge about how to place images or what dimensions to use. Though it's 6.5 megs, so it may need to be downsized a bit. Tutelary (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a try. Otherwise, do you think anybody has a profile photo of her that's a bit more recent than 2011 that we can use? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RS/N
Take note of this discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if it hasn't already been posted to this page. Dreadstar ☥   22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now archived: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174 Dreadstar ☥   17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations on this talk page
Please stop with the reverts and discuss this here.

Personally, I feel that the statements can and should be redacted or removed per WP:BLPTALK and WP:TPO. The IP editor is trolling or engaging in personal attacks, even though it's couched in terms of "improving" the article. Allowing anything and everything as long as the magic words "None of these are mentioned in the article." violates the spirit—if not the letter—of our BLP policy. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPTALK specifically excludes content related to content choices. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate It is directly related to making content choices, contesting why there is no criticism or mention of it in the article. They weren't supposing something heinous, they were supposing some common notion that Anita's critics have. I strongly oppose redacting anyone's content unless it is blatantly, irrevocably and unambiguously disruptive. This was not. Additionally, others' comments should not be edited. Tutelary (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That "notion" was not supported by any reliable source which would enable us to include such content. That puts the cart before the horse. If there's no sources, there's no content we can even discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear. What we are dealing with are entirely-unsupported, entirely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior — literally libel.
 * If the editor presented a reliable source which said the same things, it would not be removed under BLP, because it would be relevant to a content choice — Is that reliable source's POV worthy of inclusion? That would be a proper subject of reasoned debate.
 * But that's not what we have here. We have an anonymous drive-by IP editor on the talk page of a controversial person's biography making entirely unsupported, unsourced and original research allegations of criminal wrongdoing. There is no content choice because there is no content that we could possibly include under any reading of Wikipedia policy. It cannot possibly be related to a content choice — it exists only to troll and denigrate a living person.
 * We are under no obligation to allow our talk pages to be used by anonymous people to troll and denigrate living people. In fact, it's explicitly prohibited by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be considered reliable sources? I'm asking this because at this point I don't know anymore what you consider to be reliable sources. I have no trouble finding reliable information out there about either her or her work that pretty much destroy the validity of this article. I don't know why you (the article editors) have trouble doing that. So, what exactly are reliable sources? (don't bother linking me to this page because I already know about it) Skaruts (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand about that page or what was rejected on here that you feel meets the definitions set out on WP:RS? --Neil N  talk to me</i> 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, reliable would be from a source known for news. So, let's say Kotaku had criticism (or praise) for her, that could be considered reliable under WP:VG/S. On the other side of her spectrum, Ms. Magazine would work pretty well (said magazine notably went after Lauren Faust and MLP:FIM, so don't think they aren't critical of themselves). If you're looking for something more general, try a major news organization, like the Associated Press or Reuters. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The next editor restoring the BLP vio I've removed will be blocked. Dreadstar  ☥   19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reinforcing Dreadstar's warning, BLP is not an optional policy nor is it subject to negotiation. Defamation on this talkpage (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) will result in sanctions. The original 21 June edit and intervening edits to its removal on 5 July have been deleted from the history.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced much
Article by the subjects fans, completely slanted in the subjects favor. Just look at the great references used...
 * 1) Ms. Magazine. - a women's rights/feminist magazine blog
 * 2) A salon article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, who "will fight to the death for feminism"
 * 3) Three references to helen lewis' blog, a feminist and Amanda Marcotte article, another feminist
 * 4) Guardian article by Hermione Hoby, another feminist
 * 5) Gamespot article by Carolyn Petit, another feminist
 * 6) Bitch, another feminist mag that the subject has an official interest with
 * 7) Lots of sourcing to the subject themselves

Clearly, there a plenty of users defending this article and removing any chance of balancing it out..


 * Source claims of bullying/harassment to feminist blogs, whilst removing any equally pov/non-notable/unreliable etc critically sourced info✅
 * Use sources mostly to feminist supporters and statements of subject themselves✅
 * Ban anyone who attempts to introduce any critical info✅
 * Tropes vs. Women in Video Games - cover all harassment in explicit detail, yet don't even mention the copyright incident✅
 * Is subjects article now free from all criticism and slanted in the subjects favor?✅.--SurferJimmy (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor who received the topic ban earned it through long, well-documented, disruptive behavior on this particular article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced Much? the answer is a resounding NOPE. We appropriate represent the mainstream academic views of the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

POV Check Nomination
Hello, I would like to have this article reviewed to ensure that it complies with the established Neutral Point of View requirements. I was unfamiliar with the subject and wanted to learn more so I skimmed the article. From a cursory reading of the article, it was alarming to me that the only reception to Tropes vs Video Games was positive. Upon searching for more information elsewhere, I quickly learned that her series on Video Games was far from free of controversy. From a quick Google search I was able to find criticism that is not mentioned that I find to be relevant. I was able to discover this criticism from a quick google search and it made me question the neutrality of the article. I'm sure there is more that deeper digging would be able to reveal. That being said, when I put the tag on the article originally, I was under the impression that I could nominate the article and that would signal uninvolved editors to assess the situation. I don't have strong feelings, I just think it's something that should be looked at more closely by uninvolved individuals.
 * is a blog, however it does provide tangible evidence that the game footage presented in her videos has not been recorded by her. This likely doesn't meet the letter of the reliable sourcing policy, but the very first reference in the references section is also a blog and also likely falls short of that standard.
 * is a magazine article criticizing the number of videos she's put out given the large sum of money she received in funding. It is clearly an opinion article but so are several of the references listed for other elements of the reception.

(Thanks to NorthBySouthBaranof for informing me of the proper procedure) <font color="Blue">Ra '<font color="Red">don '<font color="Green">210  00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first link you give is a post on someone's personal Blogspot account. "Vicsor's Opinion" is not a reliable source.
 * The second link you give is a self-published personal opinion blog post. Buying a domain does not confer status as a reliable source. "The Spearhead" is not a reliable source.
 * Neither of your links can be considered for use in this article.
 * The blog you note as being used as a reference is published under the auspices of a well-established reliable source with defined editorial controls and a reputation for some semblance of reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As NBSB points out above, neither of the links you give meet our standards for reliable sources. Unless/until criticism is contained in sources that do meet those standards, this article won't contain such criticisms, even if they are levied in parts of the blogosphere.  If you find reliable sources that *do* contain criticism of her work, they should certainly be included, although only in due weight to the prevalence in which they are found in reliable sources.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this a fair bit, and I think generally everyone agrees that well sourced criticism should be added to the article, should some emerge. The problem has been that there hasn't been sufficient significant criticism outside of blogs, youtube videos and forums. It isn't particularly surprising, given that most of her videos are of the "sky is blue" variety - they cover something that clearly needs to be said, but the claims in themselves aren't really open to criticism. The exception has been the secondary issues you raise, but there we hit sourcing issues, and the concerns either proved not to be warranted or haven't been established in more reliable sources. For example, The Spearhead article reads like a very biased opinion piece, and the issue it raises (that she hadn't released a video) is no longer relevant. There is an anti-Sarkeesian undercurrent in some forums and blogs, and they raise some potentially valid concerns, but as far as I can tell those concerns haven't reached the level of sourcing that we need to include them. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That may well be true, but I wasn't suggesting that those sources necessarily be included. I just want an outside person to look at the article and assess its neutrality. If you believe that the article is unarguably neutral and needs no such review, I am more than willing to defer to your judgement as you are clearly more familiar with the subject matter.  It is my opinion that it may not be and it would benefit from an outside reviewer looking at it.  I am also not surprised that the most prevalent criticism of someone that makes videos on YouTube is on YouTube.  That is all I have to say, I really don't have strong feelings <font color="Blue">Ra '<font color="Red">don '<font color="Green">210  00:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to look at unless there are additional reliable sources we're missing, or if currently used sources are problematic or improperly represented. There are definitely sources we're missing, but I haven't found any that really criticize Sarkeesian or the series. If YouTube videos or any other self-published sources are really the source of the most prevalent criticism, then excluding them is the right decision.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled over this recently, so I am not as informed as others regarding the edit history of the article. While I do understand the argument why YouTube videos of people's opinions of Ms. Anita Sarkeesian work can't be considered notable, in and of themselves, I do have a bit of a concern that the result is that the article seemingly portrays all of her detractors as misogynistic because the admittedly shocking and upsetting misogyny made more high-profile news than the legitimate criticism.
 * Some of these non-misogynistic critics mentioned are women who levy criticism at Sarkeesian for a host of different reasons, while at the same time decrying similar aspects of gaming that Sarkeesian herself assails.
 * From what one can discern, the most common complaint by female gamers is that Ms. Sarkeesian represents herself to be a long-time avid gamer in her work, troubled by experiencing years worth of negative feminine stereotypes, while there is a video on the internet of Sarkeesian herself, admitting the following when she began her work in 2010, "I'm not a fan of video games, I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this." - (http://vimeo.com/13216819)
 * "Gamer" is not synonymous with "fan of video games", says the guy who started playing Avalon Hill games in the 1960s and D&D in 1975, and saw sexism already in the hobby in those days. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have seen Ms. Sarkeesian's videos, right? The ones on YouTube, probably the main reason why she has this article?  The videos show her as a young girl, enjoying playing the video game "Super Mario Bros."  The purpose was to show her as a long-time avid gamer in the video game sense.  It was to give her criticism more validity, her videos take on what she perceives to be sexism in video gaming, (chiefly in the games themselves and not the hobby), and she approaches the issue as more than a feminist but as a feminist gamer.  That, in light of her comments in the linked video is why she gets all the criticism from real, avid female gamers.  It is a disagreement between feminists, albeit between a somewhat semi-famous one and largely unknown ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.48.121 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, unless this has been addressed in reliable sources there's nothing to discuss here. The talk page is for discussing article improvements; general discussion of the topic - including personal interpretations of what's happening in the youtube discourse - violate the talk page guidelines and WP:NOTAFORUM policy.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
Both her arguments and business model have come under considerable attack. None of these are mentioned in the article. This is one-sided, and makes it appear that her many assertions are unchallenged. Despite the amount of controversy she has raised, the article makes it appear that the only resistance she faced was from anonymous misogynists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringgrip (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Ringgrip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's because the attacks were from "anonymous misogynists". We would certainly include criticism from reliable, third-party published sources but nobody has managed to find any. If you have any suggestions, feel free to include them here and we can discuss. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This article violates NPOV throughout, there are many reliable sources and people who have criticism about Anita yet non are mentioned in the article to be totally honest this article should be AFD'd she really isn't notable or encyclopaedia worthy in the grand scheme of things 77.97.151.145 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that's cute. I see you attempted to justify your position by posting this article before removing it. But you didn't even bother to read it apparently. You have no interest in making this article better, you just want to attack Anita. So if you want to contribute, realize that you have to back up everything you say with a reliable source that you read and understand, not one you spent five seconds searching the internet for. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero Serenity, it must be noted that WP:BITE is to be followed along with assume good faith, even for IP editors. One of my main contributions was to this page where I eventually learned by my own knife Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Claiming that someone just wants to 'attack Anita' is an assumption of malicious intent, which I think that the user has not earned. Instead, I believe that they should be instructed on the ways of reliable sources, why there is no criticism, among other reasonable things. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)